They're also the people behind the National Prayer Breakfast, and have close connections to the Clintons (Bush Jr, oddly, not so much). They seem to me like the precursors of Scientology's celebrity outreach strategy, with Mother Teresa's penchant for engaging with brutal dictators.

That is irrational. It comes from a perfectly rational person, who has boxed off a part of his mind to that logic which tells him to trust his mind and evidence and instead that part of his psyche relies on and is justified by something altogether different.

But can we agree he has the personal right to do so? Many of us express essentially magical beliefs for one reason or another, and often as a means to an end.

I do enjoy the poetry of religion. I gave the whaikorero at Foo Camp a couple of years ago, and (thanks to Mikaere Curtis's dad) greeted the local mountains as if they too were sentient. Not exactly rational, but it felt good to say.

Any person has the right to make up (or accept what other people have made up) anything they like. What they dont have the right to do, isa)insist that others treat their fantasies as worthy of respect outside of their temples, churches, sacred areas;b)insist that their fantasies are applicable to everyone else, andc)insist on protection for those fantasies.

I enjoy 'the poetry of religion' - as you aptly put it, Russell- as much as any other poetry. And there are a lot religious creations (from Gobekli Tepe through to a very beautiful bishop's crook I know of) that are wholly wonderous.

Tho I rather suspect that my appreciation of these true works of art arises from a different spring than that of those who made/commissioned them...

Nice of you to bother, considering my rather over-flippant tone there, but the best way I've found to deal with such folks is not to take them overly seriously. They're just a certain stripe of US-centric fundies who cater to / prey upon the damaged lives end of the market, and possibly do a passing amount of genuine good, though not necessarily by design.

Unlike some of the dodgier operators they don't seem to actively encourage dumping one's psychiatric medication and throwing oneself upon the mercy of the lord for a cure. I know of someone who allows herself to be talked into this occasionally, you know it's happened when one of her letters denouncing the evils of freemasonry turns up in the local rag. Not too funny for her immediate family though.

Many of us express essentially magical beliefs for one reason or another, and often as a means to an end.

I do enjoy the poetry of religion.

Amen (sorry hardline atheists) to that. Venturing beyond the immediately rational, and being able to find one's way back whenever one chooses, is what makes so much of life worth living.

many things, including like, what Robin Williams would like sound like on on Coke.Ooops too late

But I don't get why this is pitched as a bad thing when it comes to human consciousness.What ever direction religion's gave us is now fatally flawed.If only for the simple reason that many people won't be convinced by the arguments it uses, and it been using the same ones for a very very long time now.

And yet there are still people on this planet, who believe what a witch doctor now cum priest tells them, such as, a person is possessed by an evil spirit.Why is this not a priority world wide?Releasing (or attempting to educate them) from this kind of mental tyranny. It is other people inflicting misery on others for the falsest of reasons. In the face of this polite arguments about religious freedoms in the supposedly educated affluent west, and that other thing.Oh I don't know sometimes.

Yeah in the early days. But history is never clear cut.If you can stand the reading especially the entries by Cartomancer on this thread from RDnet it will give some idea of what went on in just the middle ages.He is a medieval scholar at Oxford, and on the interwebz he seems a knowledgeable man on things such things.

"Who'd have thought discussion about fake Twitter accounts could have taken such a turn ? This is why we'll never have threaded discussions".

Hardly surprising, Russell, surely ? I mean this thread goes from Twitter to Atheism/Religion; Long Will Be The Lunches (Aug 24) began with discussion on advertising revenue in the Oz Election and ended with the relative merits of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore; and Little Pieces of a Big Picture (Sept 5) began with everyone expressing genuine sympathy for the Chch earthquake victims before quickly turning - almost inevitably - to an in-depth discussion on Oral Sex.

In which he proudly professes his ignorance, and then goes on to say why he can, cause he's Julian Baggini and he doesnt need to waste his time.Well bully for him, these fits of pique affect us all. Is the only lesson I take from that little flourish by Mr Baggini.But here when he interviews Dan Dennett, he's not too bad at all.And Dan sez "There’s something inappropriate about an atheist having too much self-confidence in their own ability to see the truth through reason. If you have a commitment to reason, and Hume is one of your great heroes – as he is for many atheists – the first thing you know about reason is that it’s fragile thing. "

And thats sorta how I feel. Now I would really like it if all these intellectuals just butted out of the conversation and Govts make any religious organisation liable for all appropriate taxes, and lets see how long they survive.

Yeah, good interview. Thanks for the link - I had missed that one. I don’t agree with all of Baggini’s concerns, but I think he made some good points in both the interview with Dennett and the original article (especially later in the piece).*

As for Baggini’s professed ignorance, I really doubt reading the books the ‘four horsemen’ wrote would make much difference to his case. I’m sure he’s familiar with most of the arguments for the non-existence of God that Dawkins covers in his book, for example. It really is more about the public statements and general approach they have taken. I watched a documentary by Dawkins awhile back and agreed with pretty much all of it, but I felt he (and the other “New Atheists”) is too concerned with proving theism wrong. I don’t think that that’s so important. I don’t really care if someone chooses to believe in God. I’d rather focus on getting moderate theists to agree that creationism should not be taught in schools (at least as science), church and state should be separate, and yes, that governments should “make any religious organisation liable for all appropriate taxes”. I agree with Dennett that the confrontational “pail of cold water in the face” approach of Hitchens may have the effect of galvanising atheist support, but that’s the only advantage I can see.

* I only just read the reply from George Williamson at Fritanke.no. He makes some good points, but mostly in the areas in which I already disagreed with Baggini , or was ambivalent. And he bungles his argument in the end in an astonishing admission, after several hundred words, that he has “little to say” about Baggini’s key concern.

As for Baggini’s professed ignorance, I really doubt reading the books the ‘four horsemen’ wrote would make much difference to his case

Maybe not, I don't know. Im sure Sam Harris' and Dan Dennetts books would have given him some intellectual exercise. And to dismiss these authors as writers of populist tomes not worth his time to read, well, smacks of arrogance. But whatever. I'll probably steer clear of Mr Baggini in future, unless he writes a populist tome.

I’d rather focus on getting moderate theists to agree that creationism should not be taught in schools (at least as science), church and state should be separate, and yes, that governments should “make any religious organisation liable for all appropriate taxes”.

Practical goals. Its all we can do really, while people gradually give up their age old beliefs.